Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2483071772
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kellow, Z. S.
Right arrow Articles by Stein, L. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Kellow, Z. S.
Right arrow Articles by Stein, L. A.
Related Collections
Right arrowRelated Article
(Radiology 2008;248:887-893.)
© RSNA, 2008

Gastrointestinal Imaging

The Role of Abdominal Radiography in the Evaluation of the Nontrauma Emergency Patient1

Zina S. Kellow, MD, Meaghan MacInnes, BSc, MD, David Kurzencwyg, MD, Sapna Rawal, MD, Rehana Jaffer, MD, Bojan Kovacina, MD, and Lawrence A. Stein, MD

1 From the Department of Radiology, Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University, 687 Pine Ave W, Montreal, QC, Canada H3A 1A1. From the 2006 RSNA Annual Meeting. Received October 10, 2007; revision requested January 8, 2008; revision received February 22; accepted March 31; final version accepted April 10. Address correspondence to Z.S.K. (e-mail: zina.kellow{at}mail.mcgill.ca).

Purpose: To characterize the utility of abdominal radiography for nontrauma emergency patients in a single-institution setting.

Materials and Methods: Following approval from the Director of Professional Services, a retrospective review of radiography and of patient records was conducted for patients who presented to a nontrauma emergency department over a period of 6 months and who were imaged by using abdominal radiography. Only the first radiograph per patient was used for analysis. The interpretations were sorted as normal, nonspecific, or abnormal. The patients' medical records were reviewed to determine whether further imaging was performed (computed tomography, ultrasonography, or upper gastrointestinal imaging) and results were compared with abdominal radiography. Chart reviews were conducted to identify patients in whom abdominal radiography alone influenced treatment.

Results: In 874 patients, interpretation of abdominal radiography was normal in 34% (n = 300), nonspecific in 46% (n = 406), and abnormal in 19% (n = 168). Further imaging was performed for 50% (436) of all patients. Of 300 patients whose abdominal radiography results were normal, 42% (n = 125) had follow-up imaging; 72% (n = 90) of these showed abnormal, 78% (165 of 212) showed nonspecific, and 87% (86 of 99) showed abnormal findings. Of 438 patients who did not undergo follow-up imaging, 75% (n = 327) were discharged. For all indications other than catheter placement, abdominal radiography helped confirm the suspected diagnosis in 2%–8% of cases. In 37 (4%) of 874 patients, abdominal radiography was possibly helpful in changing patient treatment without a follow-up study.

Conclusion: Abdominal radiography is often requested; however, its results contribute to patient treatment in a small percentage of cases. With the exception of catheter placement, if a patient requires investigation beyond clinical history, physical examination, and lab results, the emergency physician should be encouraged to request more definitive imaging.

© RSNA, 2008


Related Article

The Role of Abdominal Radiography in the Evaluation of the Nontrauma Emergency Patient: New Thoughts on an Old Problem
Ronald L. Eisenberg
Radiology 2008 248: 715-716. [Full Text] [PDF]